You started an off-topic thread. This is the second thread I've read on HN this morning that is judgmental of others religious convictions. Why even focus on it?
OP was quoting the article, about as on topic as you can get!
I am never judgemental of others religious convictions, people are obviously entitled to believe what they want, however I would expect someone with a background in mathematics to teach mathematics, someone with a background in history to teach history, someone with a background in science to teach science and someone with a background in bible theology to teach R.E. (religious education)!
I cant help but wince every time I hear a story about a deeply religious person becoming a teacher to teach biology or history! Especially in america where some already dispute the "theory" of evolution and refuse to teach it in schools!
Eh, the study of theology is mostly the study of historical development of theology. Theology student to history teacher isnt as far of a jump as you would think. If he was a philosophy student, you wouldnt have jumped to the same judgement.
Just because somebody believes in religion does not mean that they do not believe in science. And because someone believes that God created everything does not mean they do not believe in evolution. It is perfectly fine to believe in both.
Fitzgerald: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
Hitchens: “Some people say it’s a sign of intelligence to be able to keep two contradictory ideas in your head at the same time, and it can be a sign of intelligence. It can also be a sign of stupidity, or of unwillingness to make up the mind.”
> I cant help but wince every time I hear a story about a deeply religious person becoming a teacher to teach biology or history!
History? Why?
As to biology, while evolution is fundamental for some things, it's irrelevant much of the time[1]. Insisting on "true believers" in those cases is imposing an irrelevant religious test.
[1] Yes, irrelevant. Very little in biochemistry or molecular biology depends on how life evolved to use the chemical reactions that it uses. Cellular biology is much the same. There are parts of physiology where evolution has a little more relevance but ....
Regarding your footnote, this is true, but keeping evolution in mind helps explain the sometimes convoluted steps in biochemical reactions to get an end-product (that would otherwise be pretty simple in an organic chemistry lab).
